The lives of our troops are being sacrificed every day by cynical conservatives like James Taranto, who don't mind seeing them maimed and killed indefinitely if it helps their partisan political interests. And as for the rest of us -- we're all Sistah Souljah now.
They're selling out our national security for an electoral strategy - and they call themselves "Americans."
They've been insulting our patriotism for years, just because we tell the truth they'd rather hide. Suppressing free speech through slander and intimidation is as un-American as it gets. So why are liberals or Democrats so polite to them?
Let's face facts: Taranto and his ilk would, in fact, rather see more young soldiers wounded and killed than see the Republican Party lose at the polls. And those innocent Iraqis who are also losing their lives aren't even on their radar - despite the fact that each such death helps breed more anti-American terror.
They have no clearly-articulated purpose for being there, no plan, no goals, no timetable - and where they should be providing a strategic vision, we get only partisanship and name-calling.
The best way to protect the Republican Party's faltering electoral chances is to obscure the fact that the GOP has plunged us into a catastrophe. They don''t want to withdraw because they would "lose face," and therefore lose votes. But once the election's over? They'll "cut and run" without a second thought.
Meanwhile, if they can hide the truth and accuse their opponents of treason at the same time, so much the better. The best defense is a good offense - at least in the voting booth. Too bad about your kids, Mr. & Mrs. America -- but the Right wants to win at any price, particularly if you pay it.
You have to hate a country, on some deep level, to be so cynical about the suffering of its people. And how must they feel toward the soldiers they treat so callously?
Think about that as you watch those flag-draped coffins they tried to hide, the maimed young Americans with ruined lives, and those young Iraqi children killed by stray bombs. They're all "collateral damage" - in the right-wing war to preserve their political power.
Taranto and his America-hating kind won't admit it, of course. Instead, they'll attack anyone who points out their movement's failures. And I mean anyone - Democrats, Republicans, moderates, war heroes, journalists, generals, diplomats - even other conservatives, if they dare look at this situation with honest eyes. It doesn't matter whose reputation they trash in the interest of self-protection.
It's time we called them on this unpatriotic behavior, each and every time they engage in it.
Take Taranto. Here's a gem from his June 14 OpinionJournal.com post on Hillary Clinton:
"Kerry, like Mrs. Clinton, is believed to be planning a presidential run in 2008. Right now he is merely pandering to his party's pro-surrender base. But in order for him to win, it will be necessary to break the nation's will. That is, most voters will have to be convinced of the position he has now taken: that it's better to lose in Iraq than to continue fighting."
Deception and calumny: How do I count the ways?
"Pro-surrender": Kerry's position, and that of many (if not most) Americans, is that the fighting should be turned over to the Iraqis on a clear timetable. Taranto and his bosses say that Iraq has a sovereign government. How is it "surrender" to let them defend their own country? (Unless, of course, you don't really believe it is their country.)
"Break the nation's will": The polls are clear: Americans want this war brought to an end. Why is Taranto determined to break our will?
"... it's better to lose in Iraq than to continue fighting." Continuing, or losing. Somehow he forgot to mention winning. Can he even define the term, in the Iraqi context? He hasn't yet, and neither has his leadership. He can't define "losing," either - unless he's talking about Republicans and elections. So how does withdrawal equate with "losing"? He never says.
Although I've had my problems with Kerry - Taranto cites some of them - he's twice the American Taranto will ever be.
As for Sen. Clinton, I wrote about her Sistah Souljah strategy on April 3, and Chris Bowers addressed the issue from a similar angle in this fine piece. He saw what I saw: an attempt to run against the Democratic Party's base. Now Taranto's jumped on the bandwagon, but with approval rather than criticism.
The problem is that today most Americans of all political persuasions want a clear plan for ending the war, and half of them want a timetable. The whole country is becoming Sistah Souljah. How's it going to work out for Hillary or Taranto, now that they're trying to marginalize the entire nation?
Taranto saves his basest deception for John Murtha, when he writes: "John Murtha ... demanded immediate withdrawal and then voted against it." He's referring to the cynical ploy Republicans used to respond to Murtha's war plan.
Murtha never demanded "immediate withdrawal" - and both the Republican leadership and James Taranto know it. He advocated a scheduled withdrawal and re-deployment. The Republican House leadership, in their never-ended willingness to abuse power for selfish ends, then put up a phony resolution for "immediate withdrawal" in an attempt to embarrass him.
It didn't work. What's more, it was another base and unpatriotic Republican act. They hijacked the US Congress and interrupted its work to score a phony propaganda point. Using our governmental institutions for partisan gain is yet another case of un-American Republicanism. Unpatriotic souls like Taranto are only too eager to provide them with cover.
This whole piece is an attempt to help the Republicans peddle their Death-For-Votes, Love-the-GOP But Hate-Our-Troops strategy. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. For too long, they've slandered those who disagree with them. Rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives who love their country really do think that Democrats are traitors - even if they're people of good will - because Taranto and his kind spout their deceptions without being challenged.
And please don't tell me Democrats and liberals are no different. They don't attack people personally. They honor every human being's sacrifice, every human being's loss, and every human being's point of view.
What they shouldn't honor is character assassination, or the use of our fighiting men and women as political footballs. That's not the way we're supposed to do things in this country.
Conservatives and Republicans: They've got no plan for success in Iraq. They can't even define it. Still, they'd rather stay there indefinitely than hurt their own political chances, even as more Americans die and our national security is weakened.
Maybe Taranto and his cynical friends can answer this question: Is "treason" too strong a word for that kind of behavior? Democrats and liberals shouldn't be afraid to ask.